[B-Greek] imperfect EPREPEN aorist accusative participle AGAGONTA aorist infinitive TELEIWSAI Hebrews 2:10
Eddie Van Gent
vangent at xtra.co.nz
Sat Jun 5 20:29:01 EDT 2004
Greetings All,
I am trying to get the most grammatically correct interpretation of the the
combination of the imperfect EPREPEN, the aorist accusative participle
AGAGONTA and aorist infinitive TELEIWSAI as in the context of Hebrews 2:10.
The main two text books that I use for grammar are "Basics of Biblical
Greek" by William D Mounce and "Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics" by Daniel B
Wallace. Both of these text books tell me that the interpretation and
translation of the aorist participle can and have led to some heated debates
among theologians, especially due to the flexible nature of the aorist
participle.
What I have done in the my analysis is taken the past continuous time of the
imperfect EPREPEN and added this to the aorist participle AGAGONTA. In
addition, I have taken the stance that the whole phrase POLLOUS hUIOUS EIS
DOXAN AGAGONTA is objective and "absolute" grammatically from what follows
but connected to it semantically in answering "what was fitting" at the
beginning of the verse.
So what thinkest ye mighty scholars?
2:10 EPREPEN GAR AUTWi, DI hON TA PANTA KAI Di hOU TA PANTA,
For it was fitting to Him, on account of Whom are all things and through
Whom are all things,
POLLOUS hUIOUS EIS DOXAN AGAGONTA
while having brought many sons into glory,
TON ARCHGON THS SWTHRIAS AUTWN DIA PAQHMATWN TELEIWSAI.
to make perfect the Prince of their deliverance by means of sufferings.
Regards,
Eddie Van Gent
New Zealand
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list